Received: from atlas.dnai.com (atlas.dnai.com [207.181.194.95]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f030eU719815 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:40:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from kientzle@acm.org) Received: from neptune.dnai.com (neptune.dnai.com [207.181.194.93]) by atlas.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA48482; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:41:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from acm.org (207-172-123-187.s441.tnt1.sfrn.ca.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.123.187]) by neptune.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA84262; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:41:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3A5274E3.C25C89E@acm.org> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 16:40:03 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle Reply-To: kientzle@acm.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL general mailing list Subject: Re: Re: MySQL and PostgreSQL speed compare References: <200101022107.QAA04713@candle.pha.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200101/45 X-Sequence-Number: 2207 Bruce Momjian wrote: > > One big advantage of MySQL over PostgreSQL > > right now is ease of upgrading. > > Yes, that is a good point. We are clearly > fixing/improving the storage system, while > MySQL has been able to keep the same one > for many years. Also, MySQL seems to have done a fairly good job of abstracting the storage management, so that they can support multiple storage managers. They're exploiting this right now to develop new storage systems while maintaining support for the old ones during a transition period. It also permits them to support features such as in-memory temp tables and should simplify implementing a distributed database at some future date. - Tim